P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Often after I have countered and never conceded my P2, posters still claim and insist they have debunked P2.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God.
Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived. Note Descartes, St Anselm and the likes.

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.

I am not referring to gods of the Greeks, e.g. and hundreds of the likes;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... al_figures
There are probably thousands of God over various cultures around the world and any claims of their existence as real can be easily argued away.

This is why whenever there is the question of the realness of these of other gods, the argument will always veer towards the perfect God.

One point to take note is the evolution of the idea of God over history of mankind will inevitably lead to the perfect God.

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Often after I have countered and never conceded my P2, posters still claim and insist they have debunked P2.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God.
Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived. Note Descartes, St Anselm and the likes.

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.

I am not referring to gods of the Greeks, e.g. and hundreds of the likes;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... al_figures
There are probably thousands of God over various cultures around the world and any claims of their existence as real can be easily argued away.

This is why whenever there is the question of the realness of these of other gods, the argument will always veer towards the perfect God.

One point to take note is the evolution of the idea of God over history of mankind will inevitably lead to the perfect God.

1) One is that you have supplied no definition of "perfect." We have no idea what you are assuming it entails.

For example, what is a "perfect" circle? How is this different from a "perfect" cup of coffee, a "perfect" opportunity, a "perfected" skill, a "perfect" rationale, and so on...

In other words, "perfect" is an adjective. It derives its connotation from the noun to which it is applied. If you speak of the idea of a "perfect" God, you need to say exactly what perfections inhere in being a "perfect God." For it is quite clear that in every version Theism, God is believe to possess certain specific qualities (or "perfections," if you like) but NOT to possess all properties. For example, the God of Judaism is not a "perfect liar," and does not possess the qualities for the "perfecting" of evil. The "god" of the Gita is "perfectly impassive," indeed "perfectly willing" in the death and dismemberment of Pandavas soldiers, but is clearly not "perfectly merciful."

Thus, in your syllogism, "perfection" is just not a clear idea; and absent a clear idea, you really are in no condition to say whether anybody believes it or not.

For example, it might be instrumentally imperative to use a hammer to set nails; but it is not morally imperative to do so. It's rationally imperative to follow syllogistic logic. But it is not emotionally, socially or legally imperative to do so. So which "imperative" are you invoking there?

Often after I have countered and never conceded my P2, posters still claim and insist they have debunked P2.

Well, your "counter" has to be good, though, doesn't it? It has to refute the specific claim they have made. If it doesn't, then your "never conceded" is really not an important issue: you might be "not conceding" a rational objection. In which case, you would then only be insisting on being irrational.

Your reluctance to concede a critique would not technically be relevant to the justness of the critique itself. Nothing hangs on your willingness to concede it, anymore than it would hang on the critic's willingness to be rebuffed.

1) One is that you have supplied no definition of "perfect." We have no idea what you are assuming it entails.

For example, what is a "perfect" circle? How is this different from a "perfect" cup of coffee, a "perfect" opportunity, a "perfected" skill, a "perfect" rationale, and so on...

In other words, "perfect" is an adjective. It derives its connotation from the noun to which it is applied. If you speak of the idea of a "perfect" God, you need to say exactly what perfections inhere in being a "perfect God." For it is quite clear that in every version Theism, God is believe to possess certain specific qualities (or "perfections," if you like) but NOT to possess all properties. For example, the God of Judaism is not a "perfect liar," and does not possess the qualities for the "perfecting" of evil. The "god" of the Gita is "perfectly impassive," indeed "perfectly willing" in the death and dismemberment of Pandavas soldiers, but is clearly not "perfectly merciful."

Thus, in your syllogism, "perfection" is just not a clear idea; and absent a clear idea, you really are in no condition to say whether anybody believes it or not.

For example, it might be instrumentally imperative to use a hammer to set nails; but it is not morally imperative to do so. It's rationally imperative to follow syllogistic logic. But it is not emotionally, socially or legally imperative to do so. So which "imperative" are you invoking there?

I have explained what is 'perfection' i.e. absolute and relative perfection in the other OP.

The above meanings of 'perfect' will apply to God in various way but imperatively a perfect God is unqualified, absolute, ideal, absolutely good and the likes.

If you want to understand what 'perfection' meant in term of theology, refer to Descartes [a great and famous philosopher].

Descartes’ ontological argument

THE ARGUMENT
It is certain that I… find the idea of God in me, that is to say, the idea of a
supremely perfect being… And I know no less clearly and distinctly that an actual and eternal existence belongs to his nature… existence can no more be separated from the essence of God… than the idea of a mountain can be separated from the idea of a valley;
so that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a God, that is to say, a supremely perfect being, who lacks some particular perfection, than in conceiving a mountain without a valley. (144-5)

Descartes’ argument is very simple. There are two ways we may phrase it:

1. the idea of God contains the idea of existence;
2. therefore God must exist (the conclusion is not just that God does exist, but that
God cannot not exist, i.e. God’s existence is necessary).

There are loads of other articles justify why God must be perfect [absolute] by theologians and theists.

Are you insisting your god is less than perfect [theologically and divinely]?

Often after I have countered and never conceded my P2, posters still claim and insist they have debunked P2.

Well, your "counter" has to be good, though, doesn't it? It has to refute the specific claim they have made. If it doesn't, then your "never conceded" is really not an important issue: you might be "not conceding" a rational objection. In which case, you would then only be insisting on being irrational.

Your reluctance to concede a critique would not technically be relevant to the justness of the critique itself. Nothing hangs on your willingness to concede it, anymore than it would hang on the critic's willingness to be rebuffed.

The point is the opposition expect me to concede unconditionally.
If one is not convinced by my argument for whatever reasons, then it would be more appropriate to say 'agree to disagree' rather than insisting I concede and then lambast with ad hominens like;

Eodnhoj7:
Another angry atheist savage, trying to tell everyone how the world should be run...
I can and will debate him myself...we are stuck in the problems of this world because of people like him.

That is why I mentioned 'crutch' and it always happened [very common] the 'crutch' is subliminally sensed as being tugged.

The above meanings of 'perfect' will apply to God in various way but imperatively a perfect God is unqualified, absolute, ideal, absolutely good and the likes.

So your idea is that all Theists must believe God is "unmixed," "proficient," "extreme," "flawless" and "fitted for a purpose"? Because all of those terms are listed above, and you say they all apply.

I say they don't all apply. Theists do not use all the possible meanings of "perfect" to describe God. For example, they would be appalled at the idea that God could be defined as "perfect to be used" in some way, since God cannot be "used" for anyone's purposes. A term like "extreme" just wouldn't have any precise application here at all. And to say that God is "expert" is about as poor and anthropomorphized a way to put the situation as a person could find.

If I were cynical, I think I'd be inclined to suppose perhaps you never meant anything specific at all by the word "perfect." It looks to me like you just cut-and-pasted a dictionary definition, without giving it adequate critical reflection to apply it meaningfully to the present topic of what Theists actually believe.

In fact, I can see from the URL you gave that that is exactly what you did. (I'm surprised you didn't include the botanical and musical definitions as well, actually). I have to say, you're not understanding the analytical problem with throwing around a word like "perfect" so loosely. You make it very easy for critics to pick apart your P2. And if you see the other responses, you'll note that at least three others instantly noticed that particular flaw. So I'm not alone in seeing that.

I think there's good evidence that it's a real problem if you hope to convince anyone.

Descartes’ ontological argument

Yes, I'm thoroughly familiar with the Ontological argument. It's really Anselm's. Descartes came much later, and was derivative, but his formulation is not the only one. You should look into Plantinga's version of the OA, if you want to speak of what thinking Theists might actually say about it today.

Are you insisting your god is less than perfect [theologically and divinely]?

Well, to be honest, I can't even tell what you intend to mean by your use of the term "perfect." You've included a lot of irrelevant variant definitions in your own explanation. (Well, really, in your cut-and-paste).

The point is the opposition expect me to concede unconditionally.
If one is not convinced by my argument for whatever reasons, then it would be more appropriate to say 'agree to disagree' rather than insisting I concede and then lambast with ad hominens like;

Eodnhoj7:
Another angry atheist savage, trying to tell everyone how the world should be run...
I can and will debate him myself...we are stuck in the problems of this world because of people like him.

"Agree to disagree" should probably be reserved for when the other person has a point that has a chance of being right. But you are correct to say that any insult would be ad hominem, and not legitimate. And he shouldn't have said that.

But are you suggesting nobody's actually addressed your P2? Because I certainly have, and have not resorted to insults of any kind, you'll note.

That is why I mentioned 'crutch' and it always happened [very common] the 'crutch' is subliminally sensed as being tugged.

Well, to be fair, that's also ad hominem. And now I've addressed that particular fact three times, and each time pointed out that it doesn't support your argument, and potentially undermines your case.

As I said before, sometimes you've just got to realize when you ought to concede a point. Not every one is worth defending. The "crutch" idea would certainly be one of those. It's a manifest fallacy. Time to drop it.

Your P2 looks very suspect now, as well. But we won't be able to say for sure if you should drop it until we know what precisely you're wanting to say by the word "perfect" in this context.

The above meanings of 'perfect' will apply to God in various way but imperatively a perfect God is unqualified, absolute, ideal, absolutely good and the likes.

So your idea is that all Theists must believe God is "unmixed," "proficient," "extreme," "flawless" and "fitted for a purpose"? Because all of those terms are listed above, and you say they all apply.

I say they don't all apply. Theists do not use all the possible meanings of "perfect" to describe God. For example, they would be appalled at the idea that God could be defined as "perfect to be used" in some way, since God cannot be "used" for anyone's purposes. A term like "extreme" just wouldn't have any precise application here at all. And to say that God is "expert" is about as poor and anthropomorphized a way to put the situation as a person could find.

If I were cynical, I think I'd be inclined to suppose perhaps you never meant anything specific at all by the word "perfect." It looks to me like you just cut-and-pasted a dictionary definition, without giving it adequate critical reflection to apply it meaningfully to the present topic of what Theists actually believe.

In fact, I can see from the URL you gave that that is exactly what you did. (I'm surprised you didn't include the botanical and musical definitions as well, actually). I have to say, you're not understanding the analytical problem with throwing around a word like "perfect" so loosely. You make it very easy for critics to pick apart your P2. And if you see the other responses, you'll note that at least three others instantly noticed that particular flaw. So I'm not alone in seeing that.

I think there's good evidence that it's a real problem if you hope to convince anyone.

but imperatively a perfect God is unqualified, absolute, ideal, absolutely good and the likes.

Three others??
What is the fallacy based on argument by numbers?

Descartes’ ontological argument

Yes, I'm thoroughly familiar with the Ontological argument. It's really Anselm's. Descartes came much later, and was derivative, but his formulation is not the only one. You should look into Plantinga's version of the OA, if you want to speak of what thinking Theists might actually say about it today.

Ultimately God has to be absolute, unqualified and perfect so that it leaves no 'chink' for any one to attack the idea. But theists are unaware an idea is an illusion.

The point is the problem related to God is fundamentally psychological and have to be resolved psychologically as the Eastern Religionists and Philosophers did and are still doing. It is the same with Kierkegaard who made the partial attempt in this psychological aspect.

Theists trying to eel their way around with reasoning will not work, especially when theism is fundamentally based on faith and not reason nor proofs.

Are you insisting your god is less than perfect [theologically and divinely]?

Well, to be honest, I can't even tell what you intend to mean by your use of the term "perfect." You've included a lot of irrelevant variant definitions in your own explanation. (Well, really, in your cut-and-paste).

The above was crude as I had stated.
The critical ones are unqualified, absolute and perfect.
Thus whatever qualities and attributes you decide to assign to your God, they has to be unqualified, absolute and perfect. Perfect is a very close synonym of 'absolute'.

But are you suggesting nobody's actually addressed your P2? Because I certainly have, and have not resorted to insults of any kind, you'll note.

You have only addressed P1 i.e. you argued God's creation cannot have the real sense of God.

That is why I mentioned 'crutch' and it always happened [very common] the 'crutch' is subliminally sensed as being tugged.

Well, to be fair, that's also ad hominem. And now I've addressed that particular fact three times, and each time pointed out that it doesn't support your argument, and potentially undermines your case.

As I said before, sometimes you've just got to realize when you ought to concede a point. Not every one is worth defending. The "crutch" idea would certainly be one of those. It's a manifest fallacy. Time to drop it.

Your P2 looks very suspect now, as well. But we won't be able to say for sure if you should drop it until we know what precisely you're wanting to say by the word "perfect" in this context.

The 'crutch' I used here is different from the typical one used by the typical atheists.
Most atheists [..I prefer the term non-theists] do not dig into the complex mechanics of the psychology of that 'crutch'. I can put aside the term 'crutch' [to avoid its previous connotation] but it is still 'a rose by any name ..'
I have not discussed the details involved.
William James went to the extend to stating something 'there is a worm at the core eating outward of the psyche' which compel theists [also non-theists] to cling [subconsciously] desperately onto something for relief or salvation [in the theists' case].

It has more than one aspect. The obvious aspect is to take the strongest available form of an argument, rather than the weaker. But here, there was only one possible reading: namely, that you meant to apply all definitions equally. You even said that they were all apt at the end. So now the second principle of charity comes into play: not to attribute to people either more or less than they actually said.

I believe you'll see I observed both.

Ultimately God has to be absolute, unqualified and perfect so that it leaves no 'chink' for any one to attack the idea. But theists are unaware an idea is an illusion.

Ironically, this interpretation is a violation of the principle of charity. But I'll just suggest you owe a reading to Plantinga on this question. Then you might be better positioned to say what the modern version of the Ontological Argument looks like.

...theism is fundamentally based on faith and not reason nor proofs.

Hmmm...not exactly a charitable reading of their view, I might say. But it's fundamentally incorrect as well.

"Faith," as I have shown before, is not automatically in opposition to reason or proofs. In fact, I would argue that real faith is impossible without reason or proofs, because then it would have no object in which to place faith. Unless one is a pure Pietist, one's faith must be IN some proposition or person: and propositions and persons are inevitably associated with reasons and proofs...and oftentimes, even with empirical evidence.

... unqualified, absolute and perfect.

Repeating the error is not the same as defining. You need to explain what kind of "perfection" you are imagining, to do it with informative adjectives, ( which "unqualified" and "absolute" are not), and to do it without having to resort to defining it as "perfection." (That's just circular.)

But are you suggesting nobody's actually addressed your P2? Because I certainly have, and have not resorted to insults of any kind, you'll note.

You have only addressed P1 i.e. you argued God's creation cannot have the real sense of God.

You'd better check back. I've addressed P2 at some length and detail. Check my first response on this strand, for example.

The 'crutch' I used here is different from the typical one used by the typical atheists.

Well, it's inevitably pejorative, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, would imply that you are yourself guilty of merely being a psychological crutch-seeker yourself, if it's true.

That's all ad hominem. You should drop it. It's silly. Really, I hope you can do better than floating self-defeating pejorative claims. It's time to retire that absurd canard, is it not?